Effects of Combined Visual-Motor Response Training on Cognitive Function and Brain Plasticity Mechanisms in Various Populations: Protocol for a Single-Center, Open-Label, Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is one of the major diseases facing the aging population. The progressive decline of cognitive function can lead to declining health or even the loss of life, work, and social ability. Exercise and behavioral stimulation can increase neurotransmitters in the brain and improve overall health and cognitive function. Reactivity training can mobilize neuromuscular function and induce changes in brain plasticity, which may effectively improve cognitive dysfunction and delay the occurrence and development of Alzheimer disease; however, the evidence supporting its effectiveness is still limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the effectiveness and reliability of visual-motor reaction training in improving cognitive function, thereby promoting the application of novel nonpharmacological therapies. METHODS: This study is a single-center, open-label, controlled clinical trial. A total of 78 participants will be recruited for the study, including an equal number of athletes, ordinary healthy college students, and ordinary older adults in the community. Participants will receive 2 weeks of visual-motor response training. The primary outcome of this study is to assess differences in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) at 2 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the following: acousto-optic response time, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Scale, Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire-9 (SCD-Q9), a 10-word memory test, and safety. RESULTS: The study was approved by the Shanghai Clinical Research Ethics Committee on January 2, 2024 (SECCR/2023-162-01). As of September 11, 2024, we have completed the recruitment of all 3 groups of volunteers. We expect to complete data collection and analysis by February 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of this study is to compare improvements in brain perceptual motor functions and cognitive levels across different populations through response ability training and to explore the efficacy and safety of exercise-based nonpharmacological therapies in improving cognitive function. Other potential benefits include understanding the functional differences and perceptual characteristics of the brain's perceptual-motor system between athletes and the general population and exploring the adaptability of the brain in acquiring skills during competitive sports training. This could provide an evidence base for early sports talent development and broader youth development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2400079602; https://tinyurl.com/23fbbndw. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56424.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".